Quality of Life Research

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 235–244 | Cite as

Individual quality of life in the healthy elderly

  • J. P. Browne
  • C. A. O'Boyle
  • H. M. McGee
  • C. R. B. Joyce
  • N. J. McDonald
  • K. O'Malley
  • B. Hiltbrunner
Research Papers


Quality of life research with the elderly has usually focused on the impact of decline in function, and used a pre-determined model of quality of life in old age. The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL) allows individuals to nominate, weigh and assess those domains of greatest relevance to their quality of life. The SEIQoL was administered to 56 healthy elderly community residents at baseline and 12 months later. Quality of life levels were significantly higher at baseline (t=−2.04; p=0.04) than that of a previously studied sample of healthy adults below 65 years of age, and did not change significantly over the study period. The domains nominated by both samples as relevant to their quality of life differed notably. Health status was not correlated with the perceived importance of health at baseline, and showed only a low correlation (r=0.27) at 12 months. The weight placed on health did not increase over the study period despite a significant decline in health status. The value of allowing the individual to define personal quality of life values in a research context is explored.

Key words

Elderly quality of life health status 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gilden JL, Carla Casia RN, Hendryx M, Singh SP. Effects of self-monitoring of blood glucose on quality of life in elderly diabetic patients. J Am Geriat Soc 1990; 38: 511–515.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson JP, Kaplan RM, Berry CC, Bush JW, Rumbaut RG. Interday reliability of function assessment for a health status measure: The quality of well-being scale. Med Care 1990; 27: 1076–1084.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: McLeod CM, eds. Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949: 191–205.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aaronson NK. Methodologic issues in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. Cancer 1991; 67 (3 Suppl.): 844–850.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holmes S, Dickerson JWT. The quality of life: design and evaluation of a self-assessment instrument for use in cancer patients. Int J Nurs Studies 1987; 24: 15–24.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGee HM, O'Boyle CA, Hickey A, O'Malley KM, Joyce CRB. Assessing the quality of life of the individual: the SEIQoL with a healthy and a gastroenterology unit population. Psychol Med 1991; 21: 749–759.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O'Boyle CA, McGee HM, Hickey A, O'Malley KM, Joyce CRB. Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet 1992; i: 1088–1091.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    United Nations. Human Development Report 1990: Development Programme. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skantze K, Malm U, Dencker SJ, May PRA, Corrigan P. Comparison of quality of life with standard of living in schizophrenic out-patients. Br J Psychiat 1992; 161: 797–801.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veenhoven R. Questions on happiness: classical topics, modern answers, blind spots. In Strack F, Argyle M, Schwarz N, eds. Subjective Well-being: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon, 1991: 7–26.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J Roy Coll Practitioners 1985; 35: 185–188.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chibnall JT, Tait RC. The quality of life scale: a preliminary study with chronic pain patients. Psychol Health 1990; 4: 283–292.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kilpatrick FP, Cantrill H. Self-anchoring scale: a measure of the individual's unique reality world. J Indiv Psychol 1960; 16: 158–170.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emmons RA. Personal strivings: an approach to personality and subjective well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 51: 1058–1068.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palys TS, Little BR. Perceived life satisfaction and the organisation of personal project systems. J Pers Soc Psychol 1983; 44: 1221–1230.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rapkin BD, Smith MY, Dumont K, Correa A, Palmer S, Cohen S. Development of the idiographic functional status assessment: a measure of the personal goals and goal attainment activities of people with AIDS. Psychol Health 1994; 9: 111–129.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruta DA, Garratt M, Leng IT, Russell LM, Mac-Donald I. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: the patient generated index (PGI). Med Care (in press).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    World Health Organisation. The Uses of Epidemiology in the Elderly. Technical Report Series No. 706. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fries JF. Strategies for reduction of morbidity. Am J Clin Nutr 1992; 55: 1257–1262.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fries JF, Green LW, Levine S. Health promotion and the compression of morbidity. Lancet 1989; i: 481–483.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fries JF. The compression of morbidity: near or far? Millbank Mem Fund Quart 1990; 67: 208–232.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pell S, Fayerweather WE. Trends in the incidence of myocardial infarction and in associated mortality and morbidity in a large employed population, 1957–1983. New Eng J Med 1985; 312: 1005–1011.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fries JF. Aging, illness and health policy: implications of the compression of morbidity. Perspect Biol Med 1988; 31: 407–423.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baltes PB. The many faces of human ageing: toward a psychological culture of old age. Psychol Med 1991; 21: 837–854.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Osberg JS, McGinnis GE, DeJong G, Seward ML. Life satisfaction and quality of life among disabled elderly adults. J Gerontol 1987; 42: 228–230.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pearlmann RA, Uhlmann RF. Quality of life in chronic diseases: perceptions of elderly patients. J Gerontol 1988; 43: M25–30.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmid AH. The deficiency model: an exploration of current approaches to late-life disorders. Psychiatry 1991; 54: 358–367.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    O'Boyle CA, McGee HM, Hickey A et al. The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQOL): Administration manual. Dublin: Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Central Statistics Office of Ireland. Census 1986—Local Population Report no. 30: Dublin County Borough. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ‘Mini-mental state’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Linn MW, Linn BS. Self-evaluation of life function (SELF) scale: a short comprehensive self-report of functioning for the elderly adults. J Gerontol 1985; 40: 109–129.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hammond KR, Stewart TR, Brehmer B, Steinman D. Social judgment theory. In Kaplan M, Schwartz S, eds. Human Judgment and Decision Making. New York: Academic Press, 1975: 271–312.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Policy PC. Software for Judgment Analysis: Version 2.0. Reference Manual, 1st Edn. Available from Executive Decision Services, PO Box 9192, Albany, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Central Statistics Office of Ireland. Census 1986—Local Population Report no. 30: Dublin County Borough (2nd series). Dublin: Stationery Office, 1987.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fahey T. A Profile of Health and Well-Being Among the Over-65s: Preliminary Findings of a National Survey. Presentation to Conference on Measures to Promote the Health and Autonomy of the Elderly in Ireland. Dublin, October 1993.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson MMS. Age differences in decision making: a process methodology for examining strategic information processing. J Gerontol 1990; 45: P75–78.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meier D, Hiltbrunner B, Joyce CRB, Ermini D, Stahelin HB. The individually assessed quality of life in Alzheimer and multi-infarct patients and their caregivers compared to healthy elderly: schedule for the evaluation of individualised quality of life. Poster presentation: European Heath Psychology Conference, September 1991.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baur RA, Okun MA. Stability of life satisfaction in later life. Gerontologist 1983; 23: 261–265.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Costa PT, Zonderman AB, McCrae RR, Cornoni-Huntley J, Locke ZB, Barabano HE. Longitudinal analyses of psychological well-being in a national sample: stability of mean levels. J Gerontol 1987; 42: 50–55.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Andrews FM, Withey SB. Social Indicators of Well-being: American's Perceptions of Life Quality. New York: Plenum, 1976.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Larson R. Thirty years of research on the subjective well-being of older Americans. J Gerontol 1978; 33: 109–125.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mull CS, Cox LC, Sullivan JA. Religion's role in the health and well-being of well elders. Publ Health Nurs 1987; 4: 151–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Browne
    • 1
  • C. A. O'Boyle
    • 1
  • H. M. McGee
    • 1
  • C. R. B. Joyce
    • 1
  • N. J. McDonald
    • 3
  • K. O'Malley
    • 2
  • B. Hiltbrunner
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandDublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.Department of Clinical PharmacologyRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandDublinIreland
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyTrinity CollegeDublinIreland
  4. 4.Ciba LtdBasleSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations